|
|
You have a pretty crazy view of things.
Well, that's your crazy view of things =)
Where does this guy "disagree" with me ? I was not even talking with him ? He just took the chance to talk some crap about me, for whatever reason. I don't understand what it gives to gim, whatever.
From reading his post, I meant that you disagreed on the gameplay vs technology focus. I don't think he meant to insult you at all and that was my point all along. I mean, he mentioned your name. That's all.
Your arguments are complete nonsense. Q3 f.e. doesn't even use stuff that's on the nVidia developer site, everything this engine uses is well-known stuff since up to 20 years. Curves, texture mapping, BSP trees. So what ? Does this mean it is really easy to write a Q3 like engine ? Not exactly, huh ?
I won't bash you on your lack of English proficiency but "e.g." stands for exempli gratia (for example in Latin). I was simply giving you an example. If you want optimized patch tesselation code, you can find some on Intel's website and a Google seach should prove fruitful as well. Also, your Q3:A example is flawed. It is at this time a fairly old engine after all and there is much more to it than higher-order surfaces, texturing mapping and BSP trees. If you would reread my post, you will see that I never claimed that it was easy to code the Q3:A engine. You are twisting my words and you are doing it in the most inelegant of ways. Firstly, Q3:A has a vastly different hardware target than your engine. See, in the real-world you cannot assume that everyone has a GeForce3. Even in the case of Doom 3 which is not due for at least another year, Carmack's low-end target is a GeForce1. Secondly, coding a fully fledged engine is gargantuan software engineering effort. Writing a proof-of-concept technological demonstration like yours is less so.
My potential as a programmer is surely not limited, I always explore new ideas and try suggestions. But if you seen "constructive critism" or "suggestions" in his insulting post, well, that's your problem.
Did I say that his post contained constructive criticism or useful suggestions? I surely did not. I was referring to the attitude of your posts in general. The shadow volumes discussion comes to mind. You have a tendency to simply hand-wave any criticism (constructive or otherwise) and try to dodge the real issues at hand. Just my two cents.
|
